Professional video creators and the television broadcasters are increasingly using graphics processing units (“GPUs”) to create sophisticated computer-generated video images, including high-definition (“HD”) composited video. Computers for creating such images typically implement a GPU with a video formatting card. The GPU produces the computer-generated video images, and the video formatting card converts the GPU-generated video images into a standard video format. Examples of standard video formats include the Standard Definition Serial Digital Interface (“SD-SDI”) and/or High Definition Serial Digital Interface (“HD-SDI”) formats. One such standard to which professional video creators and the television broadcasters frequently adhere is the SMPTE 259M standard, as maintained by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (“SMPTE”). The video formatting card can also apply special-effects techniques, such as video compositing, to the streaming video produced by the GPU. Video compositing combines two video images by eliminating portions of one video, and replacing the remaining portions over the other video. Conventionally, the video formatting card is a daughterboard mounted on a graphics card that includes a GPU. While functional, video formatting cards integrated with graphics cards have several drawbacks.
One drawback to this approach is that the integrated video formatting card becomes redundant in computers implementing two or more GPUs. While multiple GPUs can enhance the ability of the computer to generate high-quality video images, duplicate video formatting cards are unnecessary, and thus represent wasted resources. To remedy this drawback, the video formatting card can be implemented separately from the graphics cards. As such, only one video formatting card need be used to format the computer-generated video images generated by multiple graphics cards. Consider that a computer, such as a workstation, can implement one or more GPUs and a single video formatting card, each in different slots. In this approach, a video cable, or “loop-back cable,” externally connects the GPU to the video formatting card to transfer the GPU-generated video images. But video cables have drawbacks, too.
A drawback to using video cables designed to carry high-speed digitized video images is that many video cables are susceptible to variations in manufacturer, environment factors, mechanical stresses (i.e., wear and tear from frequent insertion and extraction), and the like. These factors affect the ability of video cables to reliably transfer video images. Another drawback is that defects in video cables, such as breaks or other physical abnormalities, are manifested as poor video quality, such as discolored or blank pixels. As laypersons cannot readily detect the source of the defects, they usually attribute the inferior video quality to the GPU. Yet another drawback is that cable defects can affect the integrity of pixel data intermittently, requiring users to frequently swap cables without assurance that problems will not reemerge. Specialized cable testers are required to definitively characterize cables as defective. These testers apply test signals to perform both functional and parametric tests on the cables. To implement these tests, however, the cable is removed from its operative location. Regardless, these testers are typically used only in production, and thus are generally not available to laypersons.
In view of the foregoing, it would be desirable to provide an apparatus, a computer device, a system, computer readable media and a method that minimize the above-mentioned drawbacks by using graphics processing unit (“GPU”)-generated data to characterize, in-situ, the ability of a cable to reliably carry digitized video.